Safeguard C:
Respect Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

National Interpretation Addressed Respected

Back to Safeguards overview

National Interpretation

Respect for the knowledge and rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which includes protecting their traditional ways of life, by taking into account relevant international obligations, such as resulting from the ICHR rulings and Suriname´s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights 1966 (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (ICESCR), and the international Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination 1966 (CERD), national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

How the Safeguard is ADDRESSED

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ITPs) are mentioned in existing PLRs, but not specifically defined: The Forest Management Law (FML) mentions “forests peoples living in villages and settlement in tribal societies” and the Decree on the Principles of Land Policy (DPLP) “Maroons and Indigenous People”. In the Draft Law for the Protection of Residential and Living Areas the term “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples” (ITPs) is introduced. The Draft Law Collective Rights ITPs 2019, in Article 1n, includes a clear definition of “Indigenous Peoples” and of “Tribal nations”.

Traditional knowledge of ITPs or local communities is not specifically defined. However, the Draft Law Collective Rights ITPs 2019, in Article 4g, states: “The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples have the collective property rights over their traditional knowledge and their collective intellectual and /or cultural property.” While there is no single PLR that protects/regulates all aspects of traditional knowledge of ITPs, separate aspects are addressed in different PLRs. For example, the Copyrights Law addresses the aspect of Intellectual Property Rights.

Suriname has ratified human rights treaties and declarations, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, under which Suriname has substantial obligations to recognize and respect the rights of the ITPs. PLRs do recognize the right to non-discrimination of ITPs, self-determination and protection of customary rights of ITPs. Suriname’s Constitution in Article 8 states that “No one shall be discriminated against on the grounds of birth, sex, race, language, religious origin, education, political beliefs, economic position or any other status.” The Decree on Land Policy Principle, L-1, Article 4, recognizes the "respect for traditional rights." The Forest Management Law, Article 41, states that “the customary laws of the tribal inhabitants of the interior (...) shall be respected”. The Draft Law Collective Rights ITPs 2019, in Article 4a, states that the ITPs have the right to full enjoyment and legal protection, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

PLRs

  • Constitution, Article 8
  • Forest Management Law, Article 41
  • Decree on the Principles of Land Policy, L-1, Article 4
  • Draft Law for the Protection of Residential and Living Areas
  • Copyrights Law
  • Draft Law Collective Rights ITPs 2019, Articles 4a and 4g

Conventions

  • ICCPR
  • ICESCR
  • CERD
  • UNDRIP

How the Safeguard is RESPECTED

  1. Description of how traditional knowledge and rights are considered in the process of implementation of the REDD+ NS and in the ESMF.
  • The ESMF includes several provisions to help ensure that ITP knowledge and rights are respected:
    • Priority 1 of the action matrix on “Clarification of topics currently unclear and causing mistrust and confusion” recommends, at national level, to agree on an official government position with regards to ITP rights (beyond land rights), “in line with stakeholder expectations, SESA findings and international commitments” and to develop a communication plan to inform stakeholders accordingly. It is further recommended that “traditional rights are documented and used as reference in processes to amend legislation. Existing land use maps are used in addition. (see table 8, page 41)
    • Priority 6 of the action matrix (section 4.3, Table 8, page 50/51) suggests “Documentation of traditional knowledge, uses, stories, crafts and skills, which can serve as a reference to be used where REDD+ implementing (sub-) projects establish alternative livelihood opportunities that make use of such knowledge and intellectual property rights may be at stake. (potentially relevant information for the SIS and Summary of Information to be submitted to UNFCCC)” and in other places.
    • Section 5.9 Mitigation Measures specifies that “Where REDD+ implementing (sub-) projects aim to use traditional knowledge in promoting alternative livelihoods, proposals and implementation need to address the issues of protecting intellectual property rights and fair sharing of benefits derived from the use of traditional knowledge.” (page 57)
    • Additional screening questions included in Annex 1, Table 13, page 74 include specific questions to ensure that
      • Potential effects of REDD+ (sub-) projects on “cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and/or local communities, including through the commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices” is duly considered in the screening of projects.
      • Opportunities are recognised where REDD+ (sub-) projects are “particularly suited to promote respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities”.
    • In the context of stakeholder engagement, the ESMF highlights that any and all stakeholder engagement in the course of (sub-) project screening, scoping, assessment, review and implementation should consider the FCPF and UN-REDD guidelines on stakeholder engagement, which prescribe that “Special emphasis should be given to the issues of land tenure, resource use rights, customary rights, and property rights” (among other principles)
  2. Number of documented traditional rights and rules or percentage (%) of ITP communities with documented traditional rights and rules that are to be taken into consideration in processes to amend legislation.
    This information is not yet available.
  3. Provisions included in the ESMF to ensure application of FPIC and percentage (%) of REDD+ projects that demonstrate compliance with FPIC.
    The ESMF includes several provisions covering FPIC:
    • Priority 1 of the action matrix on “Clarification of topics currently unclear and causing mistrust and confusion” recommends, at national level, to agree on an official government position with regards to FPIC, “in line with stakeholder expectations, SESA findings and international commitments” and to develop a communication plan to inform stakeholders accordingly. It is further recommended to develop and implement official guidelines for seeking and obtaining FPIC, in line with UN-REDD Programme (2013) (see section 4.3, table 8, page 41). (It should be noted that Suriname’s R-PP included some indicative elements that should be included in the process of obtaining FPIC, see Republic of Suriname (2013), page 81 and 82.)
    • Priority 3 of the action matrix on “Institutional and governance strengthening” requests under priority reform area “Coordination and communication” to “Incorporate cultural and gender aspects into the REDD+ community engagement strategy referred to under measure 2.A.3 (of the National REDD+ Strategy), including reference to FPIC (see section 4.3, table 8, page 44)
    • Under section 5.1 Proposal preparation it is requested that the topic of FPIC gets covered as part of the description of Stakeholder consultation before, during and subsequent to implementation and information disclosure, including gender-sensitive approaches” (page 49).
    • Section 5.2 Screening re-emphasises that “Provisions regarding FPIC and the applicable grievance redress mechanism (see respective sections in the ESMF) apply to all REDD+ implementing (sub-) projects”
    • In section 5.3 Scoping, table 9 on pages 50 and 51 specifies that FPIC applies for category A, B and C projects that are happening in or near ITP areas.
    • Section 5.4 Assessment prescribes that a social assessment should include, as needed: (a) an assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts of the project with the affected ITPs’ communities based on principles of FPIC; and (b) Based on principles of FPIC and together with affected ITPs’ communities, the identification and evaluation of measures necessary to avoid adverse effects or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project (page 53).
    • Section 5.6 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Plan specifies that, where an ITP plan is generated, it needs to include a summary of the results of the FPIC process and a framework for ensuring FPIC during project implementation (page 55).
    • The need for FPIC is emphasised in section 5.10 Stakeholder engagement (page 60).
    • Section 6 Institutional arrangements and capacity building for ESMF implementation highlights the likely need for capacity building of actors involved in the implementation of the ESMF on different topics, including FPIC.
    • The additional screening questions in Annex 1 include a specific questions to cover FPIC (Annex 1, table 13, page 75).
    Information on percentages of projects applying FPIC would have to be created over time.
  4. Percentage (%) of REDD+ projects where community organizations and platforms, as well as knowledgeable ITP platforms and traditional authorities have been involved at some stage.
    This information is not yet available.
  5. Progress on implementing the reparations requested in the Saamaka Judgement and the Kaliña and Lokono Judgement
    This information is not yet available.

Explore Safeguards

A B C D E F G

Back to Safeguards overview


Back To Top